Global Projects for Peace

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261116889
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fairfield, IA, USA
Phone
6414724773
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$586,682
Expenses
$667,922
Assets
$288,566
Liabilities
$2,112

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVE NICHOLS (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • CONSTANCE OLSON (Treasurer): $28,525 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of Global Projects for Peace is "to perform activities for the support and benefit of Maharishi International University (MIU), an Iowa non-profit corporation, and Brahmananda Saraswati Foundation (BSF), a Delaware non-profit corporation authorized to do business in Iowa" through programs bringing enlightenment to the individual, invincibility to every nation and world peace.Global Projects for Peace is engaged in supporting the work of MIU and BSF by engaging in the following charitable activities of the teaching of transcendental meditation and other consciousness-based programs in countries around the world including:--supporting the founding and development of transcendental meditation teaching organizations and consciousness-based schools in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Latin America, etc. Global Projects for Peace has supported such programs in more than 30 countries to date,--facilitating travel and participation of candidates from emerging countries in international t

What it reported doing in 2024

Consciousness-based education programs in uganda including primary and secondary education, school construction, instruction in tm and advanced tm programs, support for local tm centers

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,657.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $604K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $29K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.